Stumbling Block for Protestants? V2

[PRmerger]

Just to be clear - I never made that argument. It was made by **a Roman Catholic poster **in the previous thread. But I’m glad another Roman Catholic can see the silliness of the position.

I believe this is a referent to me.

And I will do you the courtesy of saying that I don’t believe you have intentionally misrepresented my position. Only that you have done this out of ignorance.

My position is NOT: “Because she has made correct decisions that that proves all her decisions are correct.”

Rather, this is, verbatim, what I proposed:

Originally posted by me: Again, if you believe that she never erred, over and over and over again, in discerning the canon of the NT, then the logical conclusion is, “I must believe that she has been protected from erring in this issue.”

Please note the very important distinction I have proffered: anyone who believes that the CC got it right regarding the canon of the NT believes that she has been protected from erring IN THIS ISSUE.

I have proposed that all of you non-Catholic folks do indeed believe in the charism of infallibility, and that it has been given to the CC, at least as it applies to the canon of the NT.

There is no other position for any logical person to hold.

You do indeed believe in the charism of infallibility…

and that it has been given to the CC…

at least as it applies to the canon of the NT.

 

[steido01]

I believe this is a referent to me.

Aye.

And I will do you the courtesy of saying that I don’t believe you have intentionally misrepresented my position.

Thank you. You consistently and graciously represent the Roman Catholic position in most of your posts, and I look forward to your contributions here (not to mention the gifs). I assure you, any perceived misrepresentation from one of my responses would never be intentional. :tiphat:

Only that you have done this out of ignorance.

Well, let’s take a looksee.

My position is NOT: “Because she has made correct decisions that that proves all her decisions are correct.”

Rather, this is, verbatim, what I proposed:

Again, if you believe that she never erred, over and over and over again, in discerning the canon of the NT, then the logical conclusion is, "I must believe that she has been protected from erring in this issue.

Oooook. I apologize for my ambiguous choice of wording there; it is clear that you were talking solely about this issue, as was I. I ought not to have used “all,” as it could be interpreted in the hyperbolic sense as “all decisions on all issues,” rather than the intended “all” in reference to your “over and over and over again” (Hey, I don’t fault you. Lutherans like myself have a terrible habit of using hyperbole to make a point! ). I will try to use words that better express my intention and leave less space for interpretation. So let us continue this discussion on infallibility of the Roman Church, limited to the issue of the NT canon.

I have proposed that all of you non-Catholic folks do indeed believe in the charism of infallibility, and that it has been given to the CC, at least as it applies to the canon of the NT.

There is no other position for any logical person to hold.

You do indeed believe in the charism of infallibility…

and that it has been given to the CC…

at least as it applies to the canon of the NT.

As I’ve said before, just because something did not error, does not mean it cannot error; to further suggest that something that has not erred is therefore protected from error because it did not err is not only built on the previous circular argument, it further presumes a cause for an end that can be reached without the circular reasoning. :whacky:

Your assumption is that we both define a canon (please note that I’ve been very careful not to answer based on this assumption, as it is posed in a way that Lutherans cannot answer). Again, Lutherans have a slightly different understanding of what, exactly, constitutes Scripture and therefore ‘canon.’ The Lutheran position does not fit into either the Roman or the protestant camp (i.e. an infallible Church’s inerrant creation of a canon, or an inerrant, 66-book, self-evident canon). I would not necessarily disagree with your position that at least some form of infallibility is required to hold either of those two groups’ positions. But the original assumption that ‘canon’ defines Scripture does not hold for Lutherans (nor the Oriental or Eastern Orthodox, for that matter). I have tried to explain the Lutheran understanding, but the link I posted seems to have fallen on deaf ears. In short, I take issue with your use of “all.”

 

[PRmerger]

I look forward to your contributions here (not to mention the gifs).

They are my favorite way to convey my reaction in a humorous manner.

I assure you, any perceived misrepresentation from one of my responses would never be intentional. :tiphat:

Fair enough.

Oooook. I apologize for my ambiguous choice of wording there; it is clear that you were talking solely about this issue, as was I. I ought not to have used “all,” as it could be interpreted in the hyperbolic sense as “all decisions on all issues,” rather than the intended “all” in reference to your “over and over and over again”, (Hey, I don’t fault you. Lutherans like myself have a terrible habit of using hyperbole to make a point! )

There was no hyperbole in my use of “over and over and over again”.

You will note, historically, that the Church was protected from erring,** over and over and over again,** at least, as it applies to the canon of the NT.

To wit: at the Council of Rome in 382, Council of Hippo in 393, the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419, Second Council of Nicea in 787, Council of Florence 1442 and finally, the Council of Trent in 1546.

Over, and over, and over, and over again. :yup:

 

[PRmerger]

As I’ve said before, just because something did not error, does not mean it cannot error;

This argument proves untenable when you note that the Church has done this on a multitude of occasions.

Could you please answer this question, steido: if you believe the canon to be correct, how is it that you believe the Church, full of fallible men, was able to discern this?

 

[adf417]

They are my favorite way to convey my reaction in a humorous manner.

Fair enough.

There was no hyperbole in my use of “over and over and over again”.

You will note, historically, that the Church was protected from erring,** over and over and over again,** at least, as it applies to the canon of the NT.

To wit: at the Council of Rome in 382, Council of Hippo in 393, the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419, Second Council of Nicea in 787, Council of Florence 1442 and finally, the Council of Trent in 1546.

Over, and over, and over, and over again. :yup:

PR you may want to amend this. I think you are missing a couple “and over agains”

 

[FathersKnowBest]

As I’ve said before, just because something did not error, does not mean it cannot error; to further suggest that something that has not erred is therefore protected from error because it did not err is not only built on the previous circular argument, it further presumes a cause for an end that can be reached without the circular reasoning. :whacky:

OK, here’s where I, as a Catholic, am confused.
You said: “just because something did not error, does not mean it cannot error;”

How do you KNOW that the Church wasn’t in error?

Your assumption is that we both define a canon (please note that I’ve been very careful not to answer based on this assumption, as it is posed in a way that Lutherans cannot answer). Again, Lutherans have a slightly different understanding of what, exactly, constitutes Scripture and therefore ‘canon.’ The Lutheran position does not fit into either the Roman or the protestant camp (i.e. an infallible Church’s inerrant creation of a canon, or an inerrant, 66-book, self-evident canon). I would not necessarily disagree with your position that at least some form of infallibility is required to hold either of those two groups’ positions. But the original assumption that ‘canon’ defines Scripture does not hold for Lutherans (nor the Oriental or Eastern Orthodox, for that matter). I have tried to explain the Lutheran understanding, but the link I posted seems to have fallen on deaf ears. In short, I take issue with your use of “all.”

How can you derive doctrine from a book that you don’t know is inspired?

Do you first need to hold that doctrine, and then subsequently determine if the book teaches that?

In truth, that is one of the Church’s criteria for canonicity. However, we believe in Christ’s promise that He would guid the Church into “all truth” to determine this.

Where did you get that doctrine in the first place?
The Catholic Church has an answer for that: the paradosis of the Apostles.
Without belief in this Apostolic Tradition, it’s impossible to have complete faith in the Scriptures.

 

[steido01]

This argument proves untenable when you note that the Church has done this on a multitude of occasions.

A correct decision is not proof of being ‘protected from err,’ no matter how many times the decision is repeated. Consistency through the past, while commendable, is not -logically- proof for the future. Separately, that the church catholic has made consistent universal decisions regarding the canon is… well, factually debatable, at best.

Could you please answer this question, steido: if you believe the canon to be correct, how is it that you believe the Church, full of fallible men, was able to discern this?

Aye, there’s the rub! No, I cannot answer your question in the way that you’d prefer. Lutheranism does not concern itself with naming a canon - so how can I possibly say that “the” canon is “correct?” I reference, again, the explanation that continues to go unread:

The Lutheran approach to Scripture begins with faith in Jesus and confession of belonging to the apostolic church. This implies two basic premises:

1. 
   *]It is the apostolic witness to Jesus that tells us who he is as opposed to secret oral traditions of gnostic communities (thus we accept the four canonical Gospels, and not spurious gnostic texts).
   *]“Scripture” is whatever Jesus pointed to as authoritative (which according to the Gospel records is apostolic teaching and the Old Testament).

1. 
   

   Now the fact is you have to begin somewhere. So this is where Lutheranism begins, and if you look at the records we have, this is where many in the early Church began as well. The problem is that these two rules don’t immediately define a list of books, but push us to revisit which books are in fact part of this confession. After all, what did Jesus mean by “Scripture?” Which NT books are actually apostolic? **Thus the canon is for us primarily a historical question rather than a doctrinal question. **But when you look at the early history of the Church, while some NT books are universally attested as apostolic testimony to the Gospel, some, such as Revelation, James, and Philemon, were heavily disputed. There is little evidence that Palestinian Jews in Jesus’ day would have understood the Old Testament Apocrypha to be included when Jesus referred to “Scripture,” and acceptance of these books as divinely inspired by later Christians was hardly universal, even in the century before the Reformation. An authoritative, absolutely reliable, Scripture requires an authoritative, absolutely reliable table of contents, but there is no easy way around the historical question. Rome answers by asserting that the Holy Spirit guided the Council of Trent to vote correctly on the truth, and Protestants tend to look for earlier, divinely guided events leading to canonization.

   **The Lutheran approach to this problem is surprising in that we don’t seek to establish such a table of contents. **We hold that the lack of definitive historical evidence cannot simply be eliminated by properly consecrated people getting together and taking a Spirit-guided vote, and so there ultimately isn’t anything we can do about it. In other words, no amount of voting, liturgical development, or theological reflection can answer for us whether Hebrews was written by an apostle or at least a close associate. The evidence just isn’t there.
   So what’s our answer? Well, go back to that word, “canon.” “Canon” means “rule.” **So the point of a canon isn’t to just have some final Table of Contents on which to draw up a dogma and so that we can excommunicate everyone who refuses to stop asking the historical questions, it’s to have a rule of faith for settling doctrinal disputes and the like. **Thus the Lutheran approach to the canon is to have a rule of interpretation essentially defined by the certainty to which we can establish a book’s origin:
   

   1. 
      *]A dogma must be established by the universally attested books (homolegomena).
      *]Dogma may be corroborated by the contested books (antilegomena), and they may be read for historical background, advice, and other edifying purposes, but no dogma can be established from the antilegomena alone, nor can the antilegomena be pitted against the homolegomena

   1. 
      .
      
      Of course, the simple (and correct) answer that we would both agree on is: the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

 

[PRmerger]

Aye, there’s the rub! No, I cannot answer your question in the way that you’d prefer. Lutheranism does not concern itself with naming a canon - so how can I possibly say that “the” canon is “correct?”

This is quite unfortunate, steido.

If you cannot possibly say that the “canon” is correct, then how do you know that Jesus was born of a virgin? How do you know that there is an atoning death done for you and yours? How can you know that God loves you? How is it that you proclaim a baptism for the remission of sins?

This uncertainty that you are professing is quite troubling, should you wish to provide any kind of evangelization effort to a non-believer. Would that this non-believer not be aware of your uncertainty, for all he would need to do, when you say, “But Jesus died for your sins and because of that baptism now saves you!” is to counter with, “But you don’t even know this is true, steido. You are uncertain that what is proclaimed in 1 Peter is even the inspired Word of God. ”

 

[PRmerger]

]Of course, the simple (and correct) answer that we would both agree on is: the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

Then, this, too, is nothing more than an apologia for the charism of infallibility.

I told all of you guys that if you believe in the 27 book canon of the NT, you tacitly are acknowledging that the charism of infallibility exists. At least, as it applies to this one issue.

Would that you all would be able to proclaim it honestly and forthrightly!

 

[steido01]

"steido01:

Of course, the simple (and correct) answer that we would both agree on is: the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

Then, this, too, is nothing more than an apologia for the charism of infallibility.

I told all of you guys that if you believe in the 27 book canon of the NT, you tacitly are acknowledging that the charism of infallibility exists. At least, as it applies to this one issue.

Would that you all would be able to proclaim it honestly and forthrightly!

I figured you might pounce on that. That the Spirit guides the church catholic is undeniable. That sinful men refuse to listen - or worse, claim to understand and speak for it, is likewise indisputable.

 

[steido01]

This is quite unfortunate, steido.

If you cannot possibly say that the “canon” is correct, then how do you know that Jesus was born of a virgin? How do you know that there is an atoning death done for you and yours? How can you know that God loves you? How is it that you proclaim a baptism for the remission of sins?

This uncertainty that you are professing is quite troubling, should you wish to provide any kind of evangelization effort to a non-believer. Would that this non-believer not be aware of your uncertainty, for all he would need to do, when you say, “But Jesus died for your sins and because of that baptism now saves you!” is to counter with, “But you don’t even know this is true, steido. You are uncertain that what is proclaimed in 1 Peter is even the inspired Word of God. ”

You know all this only from the Bible? Since when are you a solo-Scripturist? I kid, I kid.

Look, now. Scripture is the inspired Word of God, and we take great solace in knowing the certainty it offers. You’ve responded with a mischaracterization of what I’ve said. You’ve moved my quotation marks, which I placed intentionally on “the” and “correct,” not on ‘canon.’ I set them so to note the difference in understanding of the word ‘canon.’ Lutherans don’t think of a canon in the way you Roman Catholics or protestants do. I don’t know how else to explain this. I’ve posted a helpful link and even bits of an article that explains the Lutheran position much more clearly than I ever could.

The canon, to Lutherans, is not “some final Table of Contents on which to draw up a dogma and so that we can excommunicate everyone who refuses to stop asking the historical questions” (as it is to both Rome and the ‘Bible only!’ folks), “it’s to have a rule of faith for settling doctrinal disputes and the like.” We view the ‘canon’ as the early Christians did, relying on the church catholic (in general, not simply in a series of local councils) to determine which books are certainly Scripture and what additional books may be numbered as canonical. From the remainder of the link:

Thus the Lutheran approach to the canon is to have a rule of interpretation essentially defined by the certainty to which we can establish a book’s origin:

1. 
   *]A dogma must be established by the universally attested books (homolegomena).
   *]Dogma may be corroborated by the contested books (antilegomena), and they may be read for historical background, advice, and other edifying purposes, but no dogma can be established from the antilegomena alone, nor can the antilegomena be pitted against the homolegomena

1. 
   

   An example of the application of this is that Lutherans will never make some particular interpretation of Revelation a church-defining issue. Yes, we preach from it, write commentaries in it, and read it in our lectionaries, but because the early church witness to the origin of this book is divided, our confessional principles on eschatology are ultimately drawn from the Gospels and Epistles. This principle also leaves the door open to textual criticism, which is why we have no trouble with including the longer ending of Mark in our Bibles or the story of the adulterous woman. Textual criticism is always a problem for people who insist on an inerrant canon of divinely inspired texts. Does your inspired canon of inspired texts include the longer ending of Mark or not?

   The conservative principle fuels the Lutheran belief that the entirety of the Gospel is repeated again and again throughout Scripture. While some readers, both Protestant and Catholic, may feel that the conservative principle eliminates their ability to proof-text their favorite doctrines, I challenge you to question yourself along the following lines:
   Do I really believe that an essential truth of the Christian faith was only ever referred to by one person in the entirety of the Biblical witness? Do I really believe that a whole multitude of biblical writers were so ineffective and communicating the essential truths of the faith, despite many of them overtly setting out to do this, that only only one writer in one book ever managed to nail it on this issue?

   Finally, I would ask the following rhetorical questions: Is not the conservative principle truly the most “catholic” in that it listens to the entirety of the early Church when dealing with the canon rather than trying to vote the first three centuries out of existence, forbids nothing traditionally used by Christians in teaching and worship, and seeks to avoid unnecessarily dividing the Church? Is it not the most “protestant” in that it upholds Scripture as the source and norm of faith and scrupulously avoids establishing binding dogmas upon things that may in fact not be Scripture at all? In my opinion, it is those things and more. I think it is the most manifestly reasonable and unobjectionable approach to Scripture, yet few churches in the world seem to think so.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

it’s to have a rule of faith for settling doctrinal disputes and the like

You keep saying that we don’t “get it” as far as the Lutheran viewpoint on the canon. It’s not that we don’t get it; it is that it doesn’t make sense, and we’re hoping you’ll see it. I think you get near to that concept when you say that you can’t explain it any further.

How can you have a “rule of faith” using a critieria that isn’t a sure rule?
Why THAT rule, and not another one?

For example, do you believe that the canon of scripture, however loosely you use that word, is closed? Could there be further revelation? And, the big question: how do you know?

 

[JonNC]

You keep saying that we don’t “get it” as far as the Lutheran viewpoint on the canon. It’s not that we don’t get it; it is that it doesn’t make sense, and we’re hoping you’ll see it. I think you get near to that concept when you say that you can’t explain it any further.

How can you have a “rule of faith” using a critieria that isn’t a sure rule?
Why THAT rule, and not another one?

For example, do you believe that the canon of scripture, however loosely you use that word, is closed? Could there be further revelation? And, the big question: how do you know?

FKB,
How do you know that 3Macc is not inspired and part of the canon?

Jon

 

[ShortyLaRock_82]

How much “formality” would be just right?

And is it possible to have “too much casual-ity”?

Can’t say. Some people may be intimidated by certain aspects of Catholic worship.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Can’t say. Some people may be intimidated by certain aspects of Catholic worship.

Ever been to a Pentecostal revival service?

 

[ShortyLaRock_82]

Ever been to a Pentecostal revival service?

Nope. But I did go to a Catholic service or two. You really have to be in shape, with all of that kneeling and standing. The most devout Catholics must have very muscular legs.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Nope. But I did go to a Catholic service or two. You really have to be in shape, with all of that kneeling and standing. The most devout Catholics must have very muscular legs.

A Catholic service might be a 5K, whereas the Pentecostal revival service is a full marathon, lol. (Not criticizing my Pentecostal brethren since they are the closest to my heart , I love their passion and friendliness and ready to get busy in a pinch - I did, after all, attend Pentecostal services for about 2 and half years).

 

[SteveVH]

Nope. But I did go to a Catholic service or two. You really have to be in shape, with all of that kneeling and standing. The most devout Catholics must have very muscular legs.

And there is a reason, a very good reason why we assume certain physical postures during the Mass. Much different than just listening to music and a good sermon. We worship God in the Mass with everything we are, even our bodies, which requires standing, and sitting, and at a certain point, falling on our knees. If we fully comprehended what was happening we would probably fall on our faces. It is sad, indeed, that many faith traditions are so far removed from the origins of the Church that the Divine Liturgy is completely foreign to them. The best has been left behind.

 

[PRmerger]

I figured you might pounce on that. That the Spirit guides the church catholic is undeniable. That sinful men refuse to listen - or worse, claim to understand and speak for it, is likewise indisputable.

Do you think that these sinful men refused to listen in regards to the canon of the NT?

 

[PRmerger]

Look, now. Scripture is the inspired Word of God, and we take great solace in knowing the certainty it offers. You’ve responded with a mischaracterization of what I’ve said. You’ve moved my quotation marks, which I placed intentionally on “the” and “correct,” not on ‘canon.’ I set them so to note the difference in understanding of the word ‘canon.’ Lutherans don’t think of a canon in the way you Roman Catholics or protestants do.

Let’s go back to my cow analogy: Yes, I believe female mammals can produce milk. Yes I believe that cows produce milk. But, no I won’t say that cows are mammals. I think of cows differently. They are simply animals that produce milk.

That sounds like what is being argued here.

The canon, to Lutherans, is not “some final Table of Contents on which to draw up a dogma and so that we can excommunicate everyone who refuses to stop asking the historical questions” (as it is to both Rome and the ‘Bible only!’ folks),

No. Catholicism does not draw its dogma from the Bible. Rather, the Bible reflects our dogma. The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.